carringtonfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:2017 general election
Party lists Hey guys I've been working on a party list sheet for the elections. Feel free to add stuff which I can then put on the excel sheet i'm using. And Wabba you could perhaps take names from here for the list you're making. HORTON11: • 18:19, March 18, 2017 (UTC) Lists I'm working on an excel page for that. This is just to show what i got so far. HORTON11: • 19:52, March 22, 2017 (UTC) 1) How mandy candidates are there for each party on the list? The list should actually be at least 51 (majority in the House) 2) How are Senators eleted? 3) I will add some of these names to my list, but not all of them (some of them are maybe participating for the very first time). --Wabba The I (talk) 21:04, March 22, 2017 (UTC) 1) I don't think all parties would have lists of 51 people - for example, in New Zealand, the smallest parties that won't get many seats don't have lists as long as the most major parties. 2) From an in-character standpoint, I think they are elected in individual elections per parish, not unlike American senators. 77topaz (talk) 21:17, March 22, 2017 (UTC) I am for the abolition of the Senate. You can clearly see that the current composition of this lower house is user-related, with most of them inactive. Wabba The I (talk) 21:30, March 22, 2017 (UTC) The Senate is the upper house. And yes, from an out-of-character viewpoint it was based off the same election results as the House. But that doesn't apply in-universe. 77topaz (talk) 22:18, March 22, 2017 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I always switch these ones. Wabba The I (talk) 22:24, March 22, 2017 (UTC) : Well if most people are in favor of a unicameral house then we can do so. Perhaps a referendum? HORTON11: • 19:59, March 23, 2017 (UTC) ::From an in-character perspective, I'd prefer a bicameral congress. 77topaz (talk) 21:49, March 23, 2017 (UTC) PLEASE get rid of the social anarchy party. They make no sense. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:14, March 23, 2017 (UTC) : No need to get rid but see my comment on the SAP talk. HORTON11: • 19:59, March 23, 2017 (UTC) Results Have you computed the results yet, Horton? It's been five months since the date of the election. :o 77topaz (talk) 22:18, September 22, 2017 (UTC) :I've been quite busy. But if you would like to help it would surely help with things moving along. horton11 15:42, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::You said you wanted to use the results of the polls on the various wikis, but I'm not sure precisely what system you were intending to use. 77topaz (talk) 21:07, September 23, 2017 (UTC) :::Wanna come to chat and discuss? (Lovia). I can look forthe results I got. horton11 21:14, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::Here are the links: Conworlds results, Brunant results, Lovia results. 77topaz (talk) 21:32, September 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::: Here's what I got. Gave 3 points to 1 point for first to third pick in conworld, and 3 or 2 for first and second in Lovia and Brunant. horton11 18:01, September 30, 2017 (UTC) Okay. So, were you planning on directly using these results for the election results (with a multiplier to convert from 90 total seats to 100), or alter them somehow? 77topaz (talk) 20:24, September 30, 2017 (UTC) : Something like that for sure. What are your thoughts on having the GP decide to disband and integrate into ECO (ie. IC sometime in late March?) horton11 18:47, October 1, 2017 (UTC) ::In late March? Before the election, you mean? I think it would be more likely after the elections, after the original Green Party lost many seats; before the election, Rutten and a few other Wostor loyalists would have attempted to carry on the original GP. 77topaz (talk) 21:26, October 1, 2017 (UTC) :::You think? I would have imagined that extremely poor poll results might have forced them to join ECO17. From my tentative poll results, I have 26 projected seats on 6 March, 9 seats on the 15th and from the 19th 2-3 seats. But afterwards could work. horton11 22:00, October 1, 2017 (UTC) ::::I think after the election would make more sense, especially considering the short timeframe between the scandal and split and the election. Also, I'm surprised at the rise of the CvB in the results. :o 77topaz (talk) 22:03, October 1, 2017 (UTC) :::::Yeah, the fall of the GP coincides with their rise. Now they're tied for 5th with the SLP. Well a post-election merge makes sense then. Let's go with that then. I'll add my poll results to the page then. horton11 22:06, October 1, 2017 (UTC) Possible coalitions *SD-ECO-SLP-YES-GP: 50 *Grand Coalition: SD-CDU-ECO-ABB-GP: 51 *CDU-FLP-CvB-BPP: 42 horton11 14:55, October 4, 2017 (UTC) I propose SD-ECO-SLP-YES or SD-ECO-FLP or SD-ECO-FLP-YES. I would also like to work on transportation. Wabba The I (talk) 15:46, October 4, 2017 (UTC) : A coalition with FLP is a (distant, but not impossible) option, but it would not work with YES (ideological differences) or with just ECO and SD (not enough seats). More than likely it'll be a grand leftist coalition, but even there there is quite a gap between SLP/YES and ECO/SD. And on transportation, for sure, sounds good. horton11 15:53, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::Then I prefer an SD-CDU-ECO-ABB coalition. It's only 49 seats, but the GP shouldn't return to the coalition. Btw, how are you gonna work on senators? Wabba The I (talk) 18:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::The GP members are likely to join ECO. The party is finished so makes sense for them to merge in this case. @Senators- you mean their pages? horton11 18:46, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::I think he might mean which senator won which parish. 77topaz (talk) 19:28, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::Indeed, 77topaz, and I think we can all agree on a Grand Coalition? Horton on behalf of the SD, Topaz for the Greens and myself for the CDU. Wabba The I (talk) 19:36, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Well what do you guys propose. I have senate seats awarded based on the results for the house. And on a grand coalition, it could be a possibility, especially as some of the leftist parties would be unable to work with the more moderate SD. horton11 19:43, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Having SD and ECO17 in a coalition with the rather different CDU seems like it might be difficult, though. 77topaz (talk) 19:47, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::There is definitely a gap, though we would definitely need ABB in there. That a coalition with YES and/or SLP would also involve somewhat of a gap. horton11 19:53, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::I think the CDU would rather join SDP/ECO to form a government than working together with SLP/YES. Wabba The I (talk) 19:54, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::Yea. SLP/YES would never work with the CDU. The ideal for them would be SLP/YES/SAP and perhaps ECO, but that would fall quite short of a majority. From an IC perspective, a grand coalition would have to be the last-ditch attempt at forming a government, or at least a way to prevent radicals on either side from being in a government coalition. horton11 19:56, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::And what about SD/ECO/GP/ABB/FLP without CDU? Wabba The I (talk) 20:38, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::Yes To The Future can make a coalition with SLP,P70, and even ECO, but no way CDU and not SDP. Traspes - Dianna Bartol 23:31, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::I imagined as much, but why? You probably think we're champagne socialists, that it? :::::::::::::@Wabba - It's a possibility; FLP is in some cases further to the center than CDU and does allow more of an individual choice in some social issues vis-a-vis CDU. horton11 19:22, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Yes, CDU can join, but it would be more logical for the FLP to join form this coalition. Wabba The I (talk) 19:32, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::::ECO17 would join a coalition with any of the parties in Congress except CvB and BPP, and preferably not CDU or FLP; out of the latter two, the party would prefer FLP as a coalition partner over CDU. 77topaz (talk) 19:40, October 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::::::So, without YES, P70, SAP and (quite likely) SLP, the left (and ABB) has 35 seats. With FLP we're up to 47. Every single right-wing party together adds up to 42, so a right-only government is almost impossible. My only other thought would be for enough abstentions given the length of government formation (6 months as of next week), by the left and at least one right-wing party to form a minority government. A grand coalition with FLP would only require 3 abstentions to pass. horton11 20:44, October 5, 2017 (UTC) Proposals SD-ECO-ABB coalition (with GP seats), Van Buskirk for Prime Minister. The most obvious coalition, but we'd fall quite short of a majority. The after six months proposal. Either SLP or FLP abstain to try and end the gridlock, but although closer not enough. ---- SD-ECO-ABB-FLP coalition (with GP seats), Van Buskirk for Prime Minister. We include FLP. Would be the closest vote without abstentions but not enough. CDU abstains. The fact that this is not an all-leftist government might prompt them to abstain after six months of drawn-out formation. If you guys have more please propose. horton11 21:12, October 5, 2017 (UTC) This proposal seems reasonable. Though, the fact that it is a minority government makes me think it probably won't last very long, unless the governing parties can figure out a confidence-and-supply deal with one of the other parties. 77topaz (talk) 05:27, October 6, 2017 (UTC) : A majority seems very difficult tbh. I can forsee a number of government proposals (including failed ones) proposed to congress. I was also thinking perhaps the far left and ECO banding together, but still not enough, plus the right and a likely SD no or abstention would sink it. horton11 19:37, October 6, 2017 (UTC) :: 5 parties are needed for a majority, which would mean the largest coalition in our history. horton11 19:39, October 6, 2017 (UTC) :::I mean, the minority government does seem like the best option given these election results, but it's at constant risk of votes of no confidence if the CDU decides to oppose again, so the government might fall after a relatively short period (which would trigger new elections). What do you think? 77topaz (talk) 19:41, October 6, 2017 (UTC) ::::Well we can go with the Spanish-style option. Several leadership votes in which Van Buskirk is defeated (perhaps even a failed CDU-led proposal) until 6 months later CDU decided it best to abstain and see a government form over the possiblity of further deadlock or new elections. After all FLP in government makes it less unappealing to them. And then we just deal with a minority, which would mean nearly having CDU as a sort of silent partner. And we monitor Spain (who has a minority govt as well) for ideas and such. horton11 19:51, October 6, 2017 (UTC) Honestly some grand coalition like SD-CDU-ECO17-FLP would make the most sense to me, as I don't really see CDU abstaining when they've just gained seats and are in a position to get into government. And I agree, they could just vote down the government at their leisure in that last situation. Also, can we please get rid of the SAP? They're completely unrealistic. Anarchist parties don't participate in parliamentary elections. I propose changing it to a minor Marxist-Leninist party or something like that à la KKE in Greece. I'd volunteer to do the changing. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:38, October 10, 2017 (UTC) One other situation I think could be cute is having every party left of ABB and GP vote pro on a left wing government (sort of like what typically happens in Denmark) but lose the vote 50-50 as a result. I wonder if they could get the support of one of those parties to make it work, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:40, October 10, 2017 (UTC) Also, I propose adding two more seats to CDU, perhaps from BC, to make them the largest party, which I think would make sense as they weren't involved in the Green Party coalition. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:55, October 10, 2017 (UTC) : Don't see a need to have to chance results. Sure CDU didn't come in first, but every single center-right/right-wing party won seats at the expense of the former Greens (ECO/GP), and Brunant Conservatives won their record number of seats which adds a different dynamic. horton11 12:53, October 10, 2017 (UTC) Then why hasn't Adrian Vandreck resigned after two disappointing results. And what is causing people to vote for CvB? Is she just very charismatic and people are buying it despite her being very right wing economically, sort of like François Fillon? What do you think of the two earlier comments? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:35, October 10, 2017 (UTC) : Well I'm not opposed to seeing Vandreck resign. He is a good leader and will be one of those who should've but never were PM, but yeah lack of and significant plurality for the CDU speaks for itself. Ideas on that? I'm thinking perhaps resigning after election night (in defeat) or we keep going with the CDU investitutre proposal which fails and then sees his party kick him out some way. : And on CvB and Andersen, I guess the party's somewhat of a moderation might have resonated with the voters, especially as Andersen is a very good orator no longer just spewing poop out of her mouth. horton11 Maybe a leadership challenge that he loses by just a small number of votes? Thoughts on getting rid of SAP and replacing with a party similar to KKE in Greece? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:52, October 11, 2017 (UTC) : His losing of an election (again) will want some to see him go, and losing a bid for Prime Ministership should have lots of members opposed. Perhaps other party leaders give him an ultimatum for him to go? @SAP - we have P70 as our traditional Marxist party, though at some point after the more pressing issues are resolved we can take a look at SAP. horton11 17:01, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Maybe change P70 to be more separatist or minority rights oriented? P70-Links gives a very modern vibe unlike what a traditional communist party would have. @Vandreck: But CDU didn't win the most seats. Unless it a government without the Social Democrats which I think is pretty much impossible there'd not be much of a reason to force him to resign, since he wouldn't be becoming Prime Minister over SD's leader. I think a leadership election that he loses might be the best route. Or you could swap the CDU and SD seat numbers (or take a couple from CvB and give to CDU) and make him resign due to other parties not wanting him to be PM. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:16, October 12, 2017 (UTC) : It has a modern vibe, but the party stems from the 1968 student movement/anti-war protests/early BL political activism of the late 1960s. Vandreck could be made to resign over his failed PM nomination (borrowing from Sanchez in Spain), after which the party leadership goes up in arms to force him out and appoint someone else. We could have a newer, younger CDUer lead a faction to force him out and wrestle power from the old guard, or even have someone in the old guard like David Andrade try and take charge. horton11 11:54, October 12, 2017 (UTC) I think that a student movement/etc. would then fit a nontraditional left wing party then, and that this proposed traditional communist party replacing SAP would be founded from members disagreeing with the rename from communist to socialist left (and policy change) of that party, so they found their own traditional party, sort of like what happened in Italy with the communist refoundation party or something like that. I don't think Sanchez was forced out because of his failed nomination but more to prevent the party from being seen as responsible for another round of early elections. I think a simple challenge over the disappointing results would make more sense. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:42, October 12, 2017 (UTC) : Well it's no longer a student movement. That was 1968. Today they are rather a communist party, to the left of SLP with is socialist and republican. And on Sanchez, the failed vote certainly didn't help to keep him in power, and would provide the impetus to removing him, as the post-election results, however disappointing, were by no means a loss for the party. horton11 18:36, October 12, 2017 (UTC) Yes, but a modern, hip communist party, not a traditional one that says other leftist parties are reactionary scum, like KKE, which is what SAP should change (retroactively) to be. I don't think the vote itself was the issue. If he had just refused that would have been perceived similarly. No matter what he did he would have been (attempted to be) removed. He was only removed so that new elections, which he wanted to cause, would be avoided. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:02, October 12, 2017 (UTC) : Traditional communism died out after 1933-4, to be replaced by a new wave of socialism in the postwar period, and then Marxism returning with P70 in 1970. SAP is meant to be a small and fringe party, not mainstream though. P70 is all about not being reactionary or scum. horton11 20:05, October 12, 2017 (UTC) Why would it randomly die out after 1933-4? That makes no sense. That did not happen in France, Italy, or Greece. And it only happened in Spain because of Franco. I expect a communist party continuing to exist like it did in those countries (for a long time). P70 would be a students' leftist party instead of a traditional Soviet-oriented party. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:02, October 12, 2017 (UTC) :The Crisis of 1933, which pitted the Dolmatoff, the Communist Front and some military members against the rest of the military and government, to be defeated when the king threw his weight behind congress. horton11 12:29, October 13, 2017 (UTC) Why on earth would that cause the complete destruction of a previously healthy party? Weakening sure, but it should still easily survive with still relatively strong numbers. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:23, October 13, 2017 (UTC) : Well congress, with (or even without) the tacit support of the king (and definitely the military) could have banned the Communist Front following their actions, which were (claimed as) aiming to overthrow the government, instill armed insurrection and (as it ended) opposing their monarch. In mid-1930s Europe this would have been more than enough grounds to ban a communist party. horton11 20:36, October 13, 2017 (UTC) But if it had been powerful enough to win the presidency, banning it would be extremely difficult, though perhaps you'd see public opinion turn against them after a perceived revolution attempt, but the crisis article doesn't make it sound like that. At the very least you would expect it to reappear after the Nazi occupation ends thanks to Soviet influence. A decade or two later, the majority faction could reform it to the less pro-Soviet SLP, while a minority creates a new traditional pro-Soviet party. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:50, October 14, 2017 (UTC) : on the public opinion turning bit. It might not make it sound like it, but then again the article is fairly crappy and needs lots of work (which I will get to). And on reappearing after the Nazi occupation, that is what happens. Though by then renamed to SLP, it is largely along the same lines as the prewar party until softening a bit to the point of being in the government coalition. horton11 16:03, October 14, 2017 (UTC) I would expect Communists to get a relatively large number of votes in the 1945 and 1949 elections as was frequent in parts of Europe that had been under Nazi occupation. Then they split into SLP and let's say the Marxist-Leninist Party of Brunant in 1953, the year mentioned by the SLP article. Soviet style communism is going to be relatively popular in 1945. P70 would be a sort of libertarian socialist or perhaps Trotskyist party, at least at first. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:37, October 14, 2017 (UTC) : Not opposed to that. The first postwar government was a Liberal/SDP coalition, but a new communist party could be enough to keep them on their toes. horton11 16:48, October 14, 2017 (UTC) Here's my proposed legislative results from 1945-2017: File:1945-2017 proposal.png. Say what you think. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:59, October 14, 2017 (UTC) : Perhaps a graph for that? Iwould like to get to making all the postwar goverment pages, well at least the congress compositions. horton11 17:03, October 14, 2017 (UTC) What do you mean? That is a graph. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:03, October 14, 2017 (UTC) : Sorry, a chart. Mixed up my words just there. horton11 17:09, October 14, 2017 (UTC) Yes, let me make a script to convert the excel table to wikitable. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:10, October 14, 2017 (UTC) A few of the figures are a little off (can be fixed), but would be an excellent tool once completed. I assume your figures are for at election results then? Oh and BTW I would separate NU and the Whites. horton11 21:28, October 14, 2017 (UTC) It's just a rough draft, I'll keep working on it. I was basing it roughly off of the presidential results, I can base it off the Prime Minister list if you want. Yeah they're for legislative election results but I can make a presidential version too. I have Jan Andersen being a White Party (which will now be the most conservative party until their collapse) member that makes his own party after their collapse due to a scandal whereas most of the rest join CDU. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:48, October 14, 2017 (UTC) Results should be off of legislative ones for government. horton11 22:12, October 14, 2017 (UTC) Here's a new version: —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:31, October 21, 2017 (UTC)